Saturday, 2 January 2016


Saudi Arabia has greeted the new year by executing 47 people.

They have justified these punishments by saying that they are blessings for the now dead, because they will be saved from committing any further evil acts. Well, it's a strange sort of blessing in my opinion, but then, I'm Scottish, not Saudi, and maybe I don't understand.

I can't help feel that, vile though Scots may find it, what Saudi Arabia does, is Saudi Arabia's business. It is most certainly not the business of Scotland or the UK. We can dislike and disapprove, and we should do so. But their regime is their business and changing it is up to them. No matter how hard that might be. Just as changing our regime is our business and we don't appreciate other countries poking their noses in.
The Clown Prince
We need always to remember that just because Scotland or the UK does things in a certain way, that doesn't make it right for everyone, everywhere in the world.

There are many things that are done here that regimes elsewhere might find intolerable. Sexual freedoms, drinking alcohol (and some of the consequences thereof), are examples that spring immediately to mind. Our penal regimes are very different from theirs, and although they are far from perfect, we don't expect to be lectured by Saudi or Iran on our our way of doing things. Even when these ways fall far short of what some of our own citizens would like to see.

International bodies of which they are members may have the right to lecture countries, but neither the UK nor Scotland does, particularly in light of the fact that the Council of Europe has stated that the UK's benefits are "manifestly inadequate" and the UN is investigating the welfare regime of Iain Duncan Smith. It's not beheading with swords, but it does indicate a less than perfect human rights regime in these islands.
If we feel strongly about Saudi's behaviour, perhaps we should reduce our diplomatic ties with them, stop inviting them to our royals' weddings, divorces, re-marriages and massively lavish birthday and jubilee bashes, stop trading with them, and stop supplying them with arms so they can murder indiscriminately, both their own people, and those in Yemen.

It might, even without hindsight, have been a good idea not to recommend them for chairmanship of the UNHCR. But it says something that the UK relied upon Saudi for its membership of that organisation.

When Scotland or the UK is perfect and understand fully the way of life, customs and practices of other lands, maybe then we could lecture them on how to behave. Until then, let's concentrate on (given it's such a Christian country) casting out the mote that is in our own eye. 


  1. I read somewhere that Saudi is one of the main supporters of Daesh - but the UK regards Saudi as a friend and Daesh as public enemy number 1 so go figure. But no you couldn't make it up that Saudi Arabia have the Chair of UNHRC. Either the world is mad or I am. No, I refuse to accept it's both :-)

    Ps I've sent you an e-mail as I've been scribbling my thoughts again.

    1. I know. It confuses me.

      Lovely... I'm on it PP.

  2. They buy loads of weapons from us. That's good enough

    1. And that'll be any the Brits are so enamored by them.

    2. *Why, not any, predictable text thingy strikes again; must learn to proof read.

    3. Predictive text... Even worse than my typing!

      I should think that weapons sales makes up a reasonable size of the economy. In some conflicts I'm sure we have supplied both sides.

      What does it matter as long as someone is making a fat profit.

  3. *pedant alert* That would be 'mote' as in tiny speck of dust, not 'moat' which is a big puddle which can be cleaned on expenses...

    1. damn I missed that and I'm usually MR's proof reader! TBF all this flooding is probably making us think of moats...

    2. Ah... I thought as I typed it that it didn't look right. And lo, I was right that it wasn't right.

      In my defence (probably inadmissible) it's not a word that you use any more than twice in a century, unless you're a minister.

      But 639, I thank you, and will go change it. Munguin is well pleased and would send something in the post as a token of his appreciation, but h can;t find his cheque book. :(

      PP... Your bonus is stopped for this month! And even if you were a close personal friend of Douglas Hogg, that excuse wouldn't wash... WASH... see what I did?

      Talking of connections, I wonder if Douglas Hogg is relation of Cameron's porcine friend. No, I'm just being silly

  4. tris

    Hmm spose any Scot found guilty under sharia law and sentenced to
    death may feel s bit different to hands off tris and of course
    the snp with one eye always on being im power might consider your
    idea of looking the other way ....a bit mad

    er we did cast out the mote in our eye we abolished judicial murder


    wot happened to that post the other day ???????/

    1. I think their regime stinks. I despise it, but I think it is ridiculous that we do business with them, propose them for chairmanship of the UNCHR, invite them to sup at Buck House and Chequers and shake out heads with disgust at the barbarity.

      For the same kind of barbarity in Syria we are prepared to go to war...


      I wouldn't go to Saudi Arabia if you paid me, but if I had to go, I would make sure that I behaved in accordance with their laws.

      I'd make damned sure that I didn't say their royal family were a pile of corrupt deviants.

    2. Dunno what happened to the post. It disappeared.

      Blogger having a mad day.

  5. tris

    Headlines to warm the cockles of me black black heart
    the Unionist MSM does its job ....

    Campaigners brand SNP plans for land reform as ‘lunacy’

    SNP ‘should reconsider air tax cut’ to tackle climate change
    ‘Sales tax’ would increase cost of shopping - retail bosses

    Read more:
    Follow us: @TheScotsman on Twitter | TheScotsmanNewspaper on Facebook

    1. Would those "campaigners" be landerowners?

    2. Jimminy

      Yeah so wot landowners are people with rights to
      and they know the land more than those snp townies

    3. It's David Cameron's father in law, some titled bloke with piles of land.

      Funnily enough the lower orders think the SNP doesn't go far enough.

      And yes, the nobs are human too and have rights. Far too bloody many of them in my opinion.

      If you mean they know the land better than the working classes of Glasgow and Dundee, you might be right, but I remember all the lies their sort told about the end of fox killing for sport.

      So basically you can't trust them as far as you can throw them.

    4. Yes they have rights, but surley Niko, in the workers republic that you wish to have, the masses must have the right to access the same land, and protect it from say, tracking etc.

      I was just pointing out, the complainants had a dog in the hunt, so to speak.

    5. or even 'fracking'... as your predictive text should have known LOL :)

    6. Bugger, I should have seen that.

    7. Listen, when I stop getting my typing all wrong, then I can knock someone else for it.

  6. Both Saudi and the UK are feudal states.
    The UK does try to pretend that it is subject to democratic process but in the end comes up far short.
    The only difference is that the UK establishment abandoned cutting bits off people who oppose them some time ago (Guantanamo excepted).
    A Kingdom for my camel.....the way oil prices are going!

    1. Actually, there is a post up and coming about just how undemocratic the UK is, and how it gets less and less democratic by the day. Should be with you late tomorrow.

    2. Tris, still waiting............regards, Ronnie.

  7. Saudi controls a lot of the world's oil. That is the primary reason for being nice to them. Upset them enough for them to turn off the world's supply and we're fucked, or at least until we have realistic alternatives to oil.


    1. If they turned off the supply at the moment I reckon that we could cope for as long as they could without any income.

      They seem to have been pretty imprudent in the recent past with their oil fund...